Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is private property open for all to use, at will?
Yes 2 1.74%
No 113 98.26%
Voters: 115. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-19-2018, 09:32 AM
 
19,478 posts, read 12,113,851 times
Reputation: 26250

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
An occasional hiker through privately-owned wooded land is VERY different from hordes of beach-goers who leave their trash behind (remember, private property, so no gov-provided trash cans or trash pickup, and yes... that means dirty diapers and even medical wastes are left behind), and urinate and defecate on private property because there are no public restrooms anywhere along the long stretches of beach lined by privately owned property.

What's worse is that several neighbors have found that the public beach-goers uses their outside showers (common for oceanfront and oceanside properties to wash salt and sand off before going inside) as restrooms to eliminate bodily waste. Mine has a combo padlock, so I've escaped that problem. Others have had to lock their outside showers, too.
You should all be recording this and putting it on YouTube, and sent to any news outlet that is interested. I hope you are putting up fences - at least marking it with stakes and rope or chains, locks, and large no trespassing signs. A Beware of dog sign wouldn't hurt either.

You need to be proactive because the state government is against you. You should have a case in federal court, if state allows this and doesn't enforce trespassing laws, someone gets hurt on your property it is a big mess for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2018, 09:56 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,743 posts, read 44,561,469 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
You should all be recording this and putting it on YouTube, and sent to any news outlet that is interested. I hope you are putting up fences - at least marking it with stakes and rope or chains, locks, and large no trespassing signs. A Beware of dog sign wouldn't hurt either.

You need to be proactive because the state government is against you. You should have a case in federal court, if state allows this and doesn't enforce trespassing laws, someone gets hurt on your property it is a big mess for you.
That much I DO know, and I've raised that point before. Broken glass in the sand is an issue (and you can't see it until you get cut), as the public leaves their trash (no municipal trash cans, remember?) and some of that includes broken beer, etc., bottles.

The state's Coastal Management Agency doesn't allow fences (or anything else for that matter, except dune walkovers) to be constructed within 30 ft of the vegetation line on the seaward side of the dune. I'm sure they wouldn't be too thrilled with posted no trespassing signs, either.

As I mentioned, I already have put a combination padlock on my outside shower. That still doesn't keep people from using the outdoor spigot and hose on my house to rinse salt/sand off themselves and their beach stuff to go back in their illegally parked cars (yes, I've caught people using my water spigot/hose - they inevitably say they thought the house was unoccupied ).

You would NOT believe the liberties the public takes with privately owned property when state/local governments insist they have the right to use it.

Some of us are watching the Knick case at SCOTUS. (compelled taking of private property for public use without payment of just compensation). If that doesn't go anywhere, we don't have much of a chance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 10:36 AM
 
13,631 posts, read 20,718,376 times
Reputation: 7635
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
An occasional hiker through privately-owned wooded land is VERY different from hordes of beach-goers who leave their trash behind (remember, private property, so no gov-provided trash cans or trash pickup, and yes... that means dirty diapers and even medical wastes are left behind), and urinate and defecate on private property because there are no public restrooms anywhere along the long stretches of beach lined by privately owned property.

What's worse is that several neighbors have found that the public beach-goers uses their outside showers (common for oceanfront and oceanside properties to wash salt and sand off before going inside) as restrooms to eliminate bodily waste. Mine has a combo padlock, so I've escaped that problem. Others have had to lock their outside showers, too.

Sure, but I was responding to the poster who described the fields and hedgerows in England.


Beaches- that is a different story and often rather tricky, especially around Malibu where Cher might come out and scream at you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 10:54 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,734,646 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
The question appears ridiculous on its face, so there must be some context associated with the reason you're asking it. Care to elaborate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
I was going to say the same thing about context myself. Ordinarily, private property is just that, private. there have been cases in rural areas where if a pond or river is only accessible through private land, the land owner is supposed to set up a way to get to that pond or lake via their property. Also, I know of a cemetery here in my town much the same as that pond. You have t go through someone's yard to reach it. The cemetery is old and on the site of a church that has not been there I years, but the property owner still has to allow access.

context is important. in addition to what joe said, remember your local supermarket is private property, but is publicly accessible. if you are limiting this to a persons home, then it is open for use by invitation only, otherwise you are trespassing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 11:39 AM
 
5,888 posts, read 3,210,279 times
Reputation: 5548
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I get that. However, it does NOT allow the public use of privately owned dry sand beach absent any public use easement, hence the following easement map (as an example):

http://scc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/mali...ccess-maps.pdf
Not true. This diagram illustrates the difference:

Difference between the publicly-owned and held in trust for public use part of the beach, and the privately owned (and therefore taxed as such) private property beach
[/quote]

I still don't really get it. If you have wet sand, that's public beach. So the courts have been saying that landowners must allow the public across the dry land to access the wet land. That's what their interpretation of the statutes appears to be.

And looking at the Malibu beach document, is what you're saying, that the green easement for example, is not allowed or required by the law because its inland of the MHTL and includes a portion of the dry sand directly in front of the structure the landowner/resident owns, which can't be an easement because obviously there's a house there, and its not aligned with or contiguous to a walkway or alley or such? So its basically unnecessary to establish that part of the property as a public space or easement?

If that's what you're saying then I do totally get it. I would read the statute differently than the courts have...the way I said earlier..that the statute is making anything seaward of the MHTL public, and I would also not read it as requiring land-ward access be provided by landowners. If the public wants to access the public beach, they should have do that without crossing any private property, since they always have had and retain the option of sea access - which is also public, since its the public waters of the United States. So they can paddle, swim or sail to the beach if they wanted to.

The way the courts have interpreted public access to me seems like a facially defective line of reasoning. It would be like saying that in a suburban neighborhood, anyone has the right to enter private property, and go into people's backyards, just to get to the other public street that lies behind a double row of tract homes.

And obviously you don't. Because you have other options of access - they aren't as CONVENIENT as cutting through people's yards, but pedestrians have the public streets and sidewalks available to them, so if you want to get to the public street behind the one you're currently on, you have to go that way...the long way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 11:54 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,743 posts, read 44,561,469 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
I still don't really get it. If you have wet sand, that's public beach. So the courts have been saying that landowners must allow the public across the dry land to access the wet land.
No, they're saying the public can use the privately owned dry sand beach, as well. You know... set up their beach blankets, beach chairs, umbrellas, canopies, etc. On someone else's privately owned property, on which the owner pays property taxes and bears legal responsibility if anyone is injured, etc. It's equivalent to the public being allowed to camp out, etc., in anyone's backyard they wish. That's a taking of private property for public use, but the state doesn't want to pay just compensation for it, as required by the 5th Amendment.
Quote:
And looking at the Malibu beach document, is what you're saying, that the green easement for example, is not allowed by law because its inland of the MHTL and includes a portion of the dry sand directly in front of the structure the landowner/resident owns, which can't be an easement because obviously there's a house there, no a walkway or alley or such?
No, I'm saying the recorded public use easement system, as illustrated in the Malibu map, is how it should be done. But the OWNER has to grant that easement, it cannot just be implemented by the state without the owner's consent or without paying the owner just compensation as required by the 5th A.

Quote:
If that's what you're saying then I get it. I would read the statute the way I said earlier..that the statute is making anything seaward of the MHTL public, and I would also not read it as requiring land-ward access be provided by landowners. If the public wants to access the public beach, they should have do that without crossing any private property, since they always have the option of sea access - which is also public, since its the public waters of the United States. So they can paddle, swim or sail to the beach if they wanted to.
Anything seaward of the MHTL is indeed public, but dry sand beach is mostly privately owned. The state is saying the public can use the privately owned dry sand beach whenever they want, not just the public part of the beach (wet sand beach).

Last edited by InformedConsent; 10-19-2018 at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Suburb of Chicago
31,848 posts, read 17,535,899 times
Reputation: 29384
Since they're basically taking the private land away from you, they should stop charging you taxes on it and they should also be responsible for maintaining it.

In addition, they should create a way for the public to access this public property without the use of any private property. And if that inconveniences the public wanting to use it that's just too bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 04:09 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,743 posts, read 44,561,469 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPowering1 View Post
Since they're basically taking the private land away from you, they should stop charging you taxes on it and they should also be responsible for maintaining it.
They have to pay just compensation for taking it, too. 5th Amendment requirement.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Quote:
In addition, they should create a way for the public to access this public property without the use of any private property. And if that inconveniences the public wanting to use it that's just too bad.
They'd have to take even more privately owned property to do that. There simply are very few public beach access points in some areas, and none in my town whatsoever. A lot of oceanfront property along the entire state's coastline is privately owned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 04:23 PM
 
5,888 posts, read 3,210,279 times
Reputation: 5548
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, they're saying the public can use the privately owned dry sand beach, as well. You know... set up their beach blankets, beach chairs, umbrellas, canopies, etc. On someone else's privately owned property, on which the owner pays property taxes and bears legal responsibility if anyone is injured, etc. It's equivalent to the public being allowed to camp out, etc., in anyone's backyard they wish. That's a taking of private property for public use, but the state doesn't want to pay just compensation for it, as required by the 5th Amendment.
No, I'm saying the recorded public use easement system, as illustrated in the Malibu map, is how it should be done. But the OWNER has to grant that easement, it cannot just be implemented by the state without the owner's consent or without paying the owner just compensation as required by the 5th A.

Anything seaward of the MHTL is indeed public, but dry sand beach is mostly privately owned. The state is saying the public can use the privately owned dry sand beach whenever they want, not just the public part of the beach (wet sand beach).
Oh, you mean in YOUR state the courts are saying the public can use private property inland of the MHTL?

That's super wonky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2018, 04:42 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,743 posts, read 44,561,469 times
Reputation: 13606
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
Oh, you mean in YOUR state the courts are saying the public can use private property inland of the MHTL?
Yes, that's exactly what they've said.

Quote:
That's super wonky.
Yes, it is. It's also unconstitutional.

The Emerald Isle case would have gone to SCOTUS, if necessary, but the owners sold the property and the defendants (government) then had the case dismissed at the NC Supreme Court. Now that some local governments are charging the public fees to drive and park 4WDs on other people's privately owned beach property, it will likely be challenged again. Not only have they taken privately owned property for public use without paying just compensation, they're now also collecting revenue from doing so.

Think about it... If you own your home, that would be like your local government telling the public they can sunbathe, camp out, cook out, whatever... in your backyard and charge them a fee to do so. But you don't get any of that money. It's nuts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top